In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
f2fs: fix to do sanity check on sit_bitmap_size
w/ below testcase, resize will generate a corrupted image which
contains inconsistent metadata, so when mounting such image, it
will trigger kernel panic:
touch img
truncate -s $((512*1024*1024*1024)) img
mkfs.f2fs -f img $((256*1024*1024))
resize.f2fs -s -i img -t $((1024*1024*1024))
mount img /mnt/f2fs
------------[ cut here ]------------
kernel BUG at fs/f2fs/segment.h:863!
Oops: invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI
CPU: 11 UID: 0 PID: 3922 Comm: mount Not tainted 6.15.0-rc1+ #191 PREEMPT(voluntary)
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.16.3-debian-1.16.3-2 04/01/2014
RIP: 0010:f2fs_ra_meta_pages+0x47c/0x490
Call Trace:
f2fs_build_segment_manager+0x11c3/0x2600
f2fs_fill_super+0xe97/0x2840
mount_bdev+0xf4/0x140
legacy_get_tree+0x2b/0x50
vfs_get_tree+0x29/0xd0
path_mount+0x487/0xaf0
__x64_sys_mount+0x116/0x150
do_syscall_64+0x82/0x190
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
RIP: 0033:0x7fdbfde1bcfe
The reaseon is:
sit_i->bitmap_size is 192, so size of sit bitmap is 192*8=1536, at maximum
there are 1536 sit blocks, however MAIN_SEGS is 261893, so that sit_blk_cnt
is 4762, build_sit_entries() -> current_sit_addr() tries to access
out-of-boundary in sit_bitmap at offset from [1536, 4762), once sit_bitmap
and sit_bitmap_mirror is not the same, it will trigger f2fs_bug_on().
Let's add sanity check in f2fs_sanity_check_ckpt() to avoid panic.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it